|
Post by dougell on Jan 28, 2014 12:37:42 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with your specific area of potter county but sustaining and making it work are two different things.Take it from me,you may not want them.We had a herd move around my house in last September.They seemed t have moved out by around the middle of October and it's probably a good thing because they were about to be removed by the locals.They devistated my buddy's one corn field.
I'm neutral on the wild pheasant issue as I really don't know enough to form an opinion.I personally don't care for the put and take operation.I think it should go away unless they put a pheasant stamp in place.
|
|
|
Post by rober on Jan 28, 2014 12:48:45 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with your specific area of potter county but sustaining and making it work are two different things.Take it from me,you may not want them.We had a herd move around my house in last September.They seemed t have moved out by around the middle of October and it's probably a good thing because they were about to be removed by the locals.They devistated my buddy's one corn field. I'm neutral on the wild pheasant issue as I really don't know enough to form an opinion.I personally don't care for the put and take operation.I think it should go away unless they put a pheasant stamp in place. Trust me, I do not want them either. I don't have a problem with the stocking as long as the birds are not infected with some Avian Bug. I think there should also be a stamp to help support the raising of these birds also. My issue is Private lands being used.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jan 28, 2014 13:13:51 GMT -5
Rober, some of it is on public land, but overall, not much, but I see your point and it was always one that concerned me.
Anyway, Lynn has proven that with enough habitat on the ground you can produce wild pheasants.
Most of us know thats possible, but like you said, without the CREP, its for nought, and outside the CREP areas, you won't have pheasants on farms that are being farmed in a conventional manner. The cover is just not there.
|
|
|
Post by rober on Jan 28, 2014 13:50:11 GMT -5
You are correct in that they can produce wild pheasants. But as I say my issue is with the private ground. If it goes away, so does the pheasants. It is not my time, nor my money so I have no interest in it. My biggest concern is that all the private land will be un-huntable when and if a season ever opens. It will be just like the deer and geese situation on private land. You have to pay to play
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jan 28, 2014 13:53:02 GMT -5
Those are concerns of mine as well Rick.
|
|
|
Post by Roosterslammer on Jan 28, 2014 23:05:11 GMT -5
Wrong again Rober. CREP is a soil conservation program. The pheasants are riding along for free. A large part of the program is funded by the Mellon Foundation and PF chapters. You'll have to make something else up. Ok, get rid of the CREP Program and the pheasants do not survive. I could be wrong but I don't think so but CRP and CREP, are all paid by the same people!! Not the Mellon Foundation and not PF. The Mellon Foundation and PF are both good organizations and both do a lot to enhance wildlife. If this was ALL on Public land, I would support this effort. UNLESS, you can tell me there are easements tied to pheasant hunting that these lands will always be opened to pheasant hunters. Then I have a change of attitude Let me say again. CREP and CRP are soil conservation programs. They are not pheasant programs. Trying to stick this expense to pheasants is not accurate so give it up. Your request that this program be done on public ground only is irrational. There is no wildlife program in the country that can claim that. If you would only do grouse or woodcock habitat work on public ground that you can then hunt, it just shows you are more interested in yourself than the grouse or woodcock. The survey was given at the PGC meeting this week. It will be available on the PGC website. I'll post the link when it comes up so you can have more ridiculous comments. You are so off the wall that I will no longer respond to your comments. They just don't qualify for reasonable discussion material. Bye.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jan 29, 2014 6:16:25 GMT -5
Lynn, he has valid points as to the access issues this program presents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2014 7:09:29 GMT -5
Lynn, I read an article on the stocking of hegins/gratz again. In the article it mentioned that you couldn't stock it the last year because of declining pheasant populations in the west. Why are they declining? Over Hunting?
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jan 29, 2014 8:07:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rober on Jan 29, 2014 8:15:06 GMT -5
Ok, get rid of the CREP Program and the pheasants do not survive. I could be wrong but I don't think so but CRP and CREP, are all paid by the same people!! Not the Mellon Foundation and not PF. The Mellon Foundation and PF are both good organizations and both do a lot to enhance wildlife. If this was ALL on Public land, I would support this effort. UNLESS, you can tell me there are easements tied to pheasant hunting that these lands will always be opened to pheasant hunters. Then I have a change of attitude Let me say again. CREP and CRP are soil conservation programs. They are not pheasant programs. Trying to stick this expense to pheasants is not accurate so give it up. Your request that this program be done on public ground only is irrational. There is no wildlife program in the country that can claim that. If you would only do grouse or woodcock habitat work on public ground that you can then hunt, it just shows you are more interested in yourself than the grouse or woodcock. The survey was given at the PGC meeting this week. It will be available on the PGC website. I'll post the link when it comes up so you can have more ridiculous comments. You are so off the wall that I will no longer respond to your comments. They just don't qualify for reasonable discussion material. Bye. Yes, I agree CREP and CRP are soil conservation programs. CREP, CRP are also Government handouts. People getting paid to keep there land out of crop production I NEVER said they are Pheasant programs. My problem is, and has been stated numerous times here and elsewhere, If the CREP, CRP payments stop you can say goodbye to your pheasant program as you will more then likely lose half if not more of your habitat areas. If they are not getting paid to keep the there soil conserved, they will plant corn or wheat or beans to pay the bills. If this was public lands, it might be different as to where additional funds could come from to keep the project going. These lands should also have easements signed which gives access to hunters for pheasant hunting, if they are part of the project. Now to the point of being irrational. RGS, which I am an active member of does habitat improvements on Public land and Private land. However, all the private lands are open and will continue to be open for public hunting. AND HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THE CLAIM THAT BECAUSE I SUPPORT WORK BEING DONE ON PUBLIC LANDS THAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ME. I spend a lot of hours fund raising and donate a lot of money to the RGS and our local chapter. ALL(our chapter) of the work we do is on public lands for all to enjoy. We enhance the habitat for the birds, which inturn gives opportunity for everyone to participate in grouse and woodcock hunting. So when I go to our meeting on Tuesday night and we discuss our banquet and our Grouse challenge shoot, I will remind everyone that it is not about the grouse and woodcock, it is about US. AND YOU KNOW WHAT, IF FEELS PRETTY GOOD TO BE US/ME. WHAT US/ME DOES MAKES A DIFFERENCE AND I AM PROUD OF THAT In closing, your comment did qualify for this response. Have a great day
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Jan 29, 2014 8:37:04 GMT -5
It truly is amazing where we have come as hunters..............
archery seasons are to long for everyone but archers....
Rifle hunters hate every one that can shoot "their deer" first, like there are any deer to shoot first......
Pheasants cost to much to every on but pheasant hunters.....
The grouse people are better people than pheasant people cause grouse and the ground we love to hunt is free...
Xbows hunters are just plan inexcusable deer wounding season ruining easy outs...........
And farmers, well where do we start, we banned Sunday hunting so we could charge pheasant hunters more to take their kids out of a soccer game to shoot one damn pheasant.....
I think I'm going out side and stomping snow rollers!
|
|
|
Post by Roosterslammer on Jan 29, 2014 11:43:26 GMT -5
Lynn, he has valid points as to the access issues this program presents. Our initial goal is increasing the population. That can best be done on the best habitat available which has been private ground. Most of our chapter's work has been on PPL ground which is open to public hunting and we continue to concentrate on it as public access is important to us too. But saying that we should only work only on public ground would have stopped the program. As the population spreads, more ground will become available to more hunters. This is a new and growing population and we will protect it so it continues to increase therefore affording more access as time goes on. The access issues are the same for any species. Some people hunt private and some hunt public areas. This population is small and there is little of both right now. Using limited access as a reason to oppose this project is just unreasonable given the size of the population which is growing. Last year it doubled! This train is moving forward full speed ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Roosterslammer on Jan 29, 2014 11:51:52 GMT -5
Lynn, I read an article on the stocking of hegins/gratz again. In the article it mentioned that you couldn't stock it the last year because of declining pheasant populations in the west. Why are they declining? Over Hunting? Weather and loss of CRP acres out west have reduced the population. Bad winters in Montana and SD caused bird numbers to fall by 60% in SD. They still have a million birds and could easily give up 300 but politically it looks bad to give birds away when the population has declined. Commodity prices rise and fall. Corn was $8.00 bushel but is now $4.30 so pressure on CRP acres should decline. New conservation practices in the new farm bill will help increase habitat and help maintain grassland habitat.
|
|
|
Post by rober on Jan 29, 2014 16:17:30 GMT -5
Politically it does look bad, but I just read an article where they DO NOT want to give PA birds do to un-suitable and lack of habitat. That article also stated landowners are getting out of CREP in the WPRA's and the funding continues to fall for this program
|
|
|
Post by Roosterslammer on Jan 29, 2014 19:39:11 GMT -5
Politically it does look bad, but I just read an article where they DO NOT want to give PA birds do to un-suitable and lack of habitat. That article also stated landowners are getting out of CREP in the WPRA's and the funding continues to fall for this program Rober, you're looking so hard for bad news you misread the article. The reason they didn't want to transfer birds was because of the habitat declines in the west lowering their numbers. It goes on to talk in the next sentence about how western developers pave and build on fields. There is no reduction in funding, when the new farm bill gets approved, I'll show it to you. Sorry Buddy, we're still going strong.
|
|
|
Post by rober on Jan 29, 2014 21:54:23 GMT -5
Ok but what about landowners in Pa getting out of Crep and the decling dollars in Crep. Still going strong, for now. We will see in 3-5 yars where your at. Dont just pick out one thing and answer it, answer them all
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jan 29, 2014 22:15:47 GMT -5
Out in the west 100's of thousands of acres came out of CRP when corn prices were so high.
Rober, our club has 18 acres in CREP. Our newest contract this past year upped our CREP rent to something like $380 per acre from $135 10 years ago when that contract started.
CREP is not only a soil conservation program, it is also a farm welfare program.
|
|
|
Post by Roosterslammer on Jan 29, 2014 23:15:45 GMT -5
Rober, our club has 18 acres in CREP. Our newest contract this past year upped our CREP rent to something like $380 per acre from $135 10 years ago when that contract started. /quote] Wow, $135 upped to $380 an acre. Now that there looks like a program that is running out of money and nobody will sign up for excited You guys are a hoot!
|
|
|
Post by rober on Jan 30, 2014 0:45:46 GMT -5
Sure the price pet acre goes up as does inflation. But there is a set amount if money available for the program. More money per acre means LESS acres preserved. You can flip it how ever you want, and so can I.
|
|
|
Post by rober on Jan 30, 2014 0:57:51 GMT -5
There has to be an underlying reason why South Dakota will not give Pa. birds. If SD has 1million birds and shrinking habitat you would think they would Want to give Pa. some birds, it is only 300. That is only 0.0003% of there population. Surely they could spare that amount. Or is there another reason you/they are not telling us. Do they also see failure. Could it just be politics. I am really starting to wonder
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Jan 30, 2014 6:00:18 GMT -5
I know of no one that would put plow to ground if they were paid $380:00 to go fishing. Just think 100 acres $380,000:00 for free. As Dutch pointed out ,I have an extra zero, its only 38 thousand dollars to go fishing.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jan 30, 2014 6:02:32 GMT -5
$38,000 for 100 acres Jim. You need new batteries in yer calculator.
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Jan 30, 2014 6:05:35 GMT -5
That's good money for fishing. I just need to get my glasses.
|
|
|
Post by Roosterslammer on Jan 30, 2014 8:57:02 GMT -5
There has to be an underlying reason why South Dakota will not give Pa. birds. If SD has 1million birds and shrinking habitat you would think they would Want to give Pa. some birds, it is only 300. That is only 0.0003% of there population. Surely they could spare that amount. Or is there another reason you/they are not telling us. Do they also see failure. Could it just be politics. I am really starting to wonder Your argument has become so weak you are now resorting to conspiracy theories. The fact that you and Dutch are now basing your negative comments on CREP shows how low you need to stoop to try and justify your 5% position. CREP is a fantastic grassland wildlife program along with a soil conservation program. Many forms of wildlife have benefited from CREP by providing protection for endangered and struggling grassland wildlife in PA. It's the only thing saving them from the plow and the clean wildlife dead forms of farming we use today. Shame on you both.
|
|
|
Post by rober on Jan 30, 2014 16:29:48 GMT -5
There has to be an underlying reason why South Dakota will not give Pa. birds. If SD has 1million birds and shrinking habitat you would think they would Want to give Pa. some birds, it is only 300. That is only 0.0003% of there population. Surely they could spare that amount. Or is there another reason you/they are not telling us. Do they also see failure. Could it just be politics. I am really starting to wonder Your argument has become so weak you are now resorting to conspiracy theories. The fact that you and Dutch are now basing your negative comments on CREP shows how low you need to stoop to try and justify your 5% position. CREP is a fantastic grassland wildlife program along with a soil conservation program. Many forms of wildlife have benefited from CREP by providing protection for endangered and struggling grassland wildlife in PA. It's the only thing saving them from the plow and the clean wildlife dead forms of farming we use today. Shame on you both. Lynn, shame on you!!!! First of all you have yet to post a link to your survey that would show my status as a 5% supporter. I have asked numerous times and still no link. I asked a question on why SD would not give Pa. wild birds and now you label me a CREP hater. You are the one grasping for ANYTHING to make someone else look bad. All I ever asked is to show me the link, and voiced my displeasure of all the private land being used Finally you admit with out CREP you wouldn't have any habitat for your pheasants Most, if not all farmers that are enrolled in CREP are in it for the MONEY and not for the wildlife. They do what is best for there pocket book, period. TAKE AWAY THE CREP MONEY AND YOU LOSE YOUR HABITAT. That is a big issue with me also They just cut 8 billion dollars from a farm bill, which included food stamp money. How long do you think it will be until they cut CREP and CRP monies. AGAIN, NO CREP MONEY, NO HABITAT Shame on you Lynn for trying to keep alive the fantasy of this ever working. It may work short turn but the way our economy and Govt. has been working it wont last past 5-8 years
|
|